481hp C63!
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 379
Likes: 4
From: Portland, OR
2014 CLS550 4Matic
481hp C63!
OK so they released the CLK63 AMG and its rated at 481 HP. BTW - The same 6.3L AMG motor released in more expensive models (like the CLS63) is rated at 515hp. Anyway, the CLK and C AMG models usually get the same AMG powerplant and rating so logic would say that the C63 is going to be 481hp, more than 100hp more than the current C55! 
Damn... Can you imagine what it will cost just to keep tires on that thing?
-Jeff
Damn... Can you imagine what it will cost just to keep tires on that thing? -Jeff
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 379
Likes: 4
From: Portland, OR
2014 CLS550 4Matic
Info on the CLK63 at 481hp was from Road and Track magazine who attended the some show in Chigaco where they said MB released the info. So maybe R&T got it wrong (doubt it), but the 6.3 is indeed a 500hp engine so the reporting seems right on. As an aside, sources from within Daimler Chrysler say there will be twin-turbo versions of the AMG 6.3L making 600hp (or more). Like I said, the CLK and C have historically received the same AMG powerplant and tune and the CLK is detuned to 481hp. I can understand if you are still in the denial stage... 
-Jeff
-Jeff
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 13
From: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
Can you imagine if it was a simple Kleemann ECU tune or exhaust issue that brought her back up to 515.....the CLK would officially be....THE DEVIL. 
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 11
From: SF Bay Area, CA
2006 E55 and 2002 E320
Originally Posted by BabyBenz6spd
Besides improving the engine, I hope they have a better transmission that goes with the engine. Like SMG or DSG or something 
Wonder what kind of MPG does it get
Wonder what kind of MPG does it get
I'm still somewhat skeptical that the car will have 481 hp. That seems silly. It will not cost $70k though. That I'm quite sure of. They may have a more expensive C63 that will compete with the Audi RS4 that will cost in that neighborhood, but not the base C63 that will compete with the S4.
Oh, tires, well, if I ever got this car, I might want to consider trying on those Kumho tires since they're inexpensive. This is of course assuming that BF Goodrich (the best, cheap, and good handling tire) doesn't make it in the desired size.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL
2000 CLK 430 Coupe
Originally Posted by Jeffy
Info on the CLK63 at 481hp was from Road and Track magazine who attended the some show in Chigaco where they said MB released the info. So maybe R&T got it wrong (doubt it), but the 6.3 is indeed a 500hp engine so the reporting seems right on. As an aside, sources from within Daimler Chrysler say there will be twin-turbo versions of the AMG 6.3L making 600hp (or more). Like I said, the CLK and C have historically received the same AMG powerplant and tune and the CLK is detuned to 481hp. I can understand if you are still in the denial stage...
-Jeff
-Jeff
Don't get me wrong; I think it would be great if they offered the 63 engine in the C Class (and it seems likely) but I don't follow this reasoning.
Regards,
e harmon
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 11
From: SF Bay Area, CA
2006 E55 and 2002 E320
Originally Posted by e harmon
What history are we talking about exactly? In the thus far short life of the "CLK" (starting in 1998 in the US, afaik), I can think of ~2 years in which the AMG versions of the concurrently offered C Class and CLK shared an engine, namely the current 55s. Am I missing something?
Don't get me wrong; I think it would be great if they offered the 63 engine in the C Class (and it seems likely) but I don't follow this reasoning.
Regards,
e harmon
Don't get me wrong; I think it would be great if they offered the 63 engine in the C Class (and it seems likely) but I don't follow this reasoning.
Regards,
e harmon
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL
2000 CLK 430 Coupe
Originally Posted by patrick_y
Hmm, that's true too. Also, the CLK often gets these 500 series engines, the C Class doesn't. It is possible that the C will not get the same engine the CLK engine is going to get this time.
Regards,
e harmon
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 11
From: SF Bay Area, CA
2006 E55 and 2002 E320
Originally Posted by e harmon
Wouldn't it be interesting if the next C AMG used a tuned version of the 550 engine from the CLK550, similar to how the C43 used a tuned 430 engine? This is, of course, wild speculation. Based on the specs of the standard 550, and the likely lower curb weight of the C versus the CLK, this would probably make a really nice car.
Regards,
e harmon
Regards,
e harmon
But it'd be definitely very special for the C Class to have an engine all to itself. In Europe, they have a special AMG tuned diesel engine for the C Class. Seriously. For the W203 chassis. They had it at one point, not sure if they still have it.
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL
2000 CLK 430 Coupe
Originally Posted by patrick_y
While that would be very interesting and worthwhile and more exclusive (from a collector's point of view) for the C Class to have its own AMG engine like it did in the past (W202 series), I don't think it'll entirely happen. Mainly because they want to cut costs and build just one block.
Cost cutting would only be one part of the equation in profitability, with market segmentation--leading to revenue opportunities--being another. A *hypothetical* new and improved C55 (or whatever it would be called), based on the 550 engine, might fit the marketing strategy better than a C63, and result in increased profit expectations even if the tooling cost was incrementally higher.
Since the E63 will be naturally aspirated, establishing "marketing space" between it and a C63 would be much more difficult than between the current C55 and E55. Sure, you could detune the engine artificially, but then you would face potential dissapointment among the potential C Class buyers who would like their cake and the opportunity to eat it as well: "What do you mean we don't get the same horespower? Where did it go?"
If 420hp is the detuning target for a 63 engine, how far out of reach is that from the base 550 as a tune-up target? The C43's engine is rated at 302hp versus the 275hp in the CLK430. What is the CLK550 rated at, 382? 400 is but a sneeze from there. Of course you have the torque curve and other more subtle things to consider, but it's a fair bet that the HP number is the one that will be in the spotlight.
Of course, this is all still just shooting the breeze, but hey.
Regards,
e harmon
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 11
From: SF Bay Area, CA
2006 E55 and 2002 E320
Originally Posted by e harmon
The C43 engine is arguably mildly modified version of the M113 used in the CLK, S, and ML, and calling it unique to the C43 would be a stretch. The C36 before it was a much different story, and many would submit that the C43 became more "mainstream"--and used the same block--for the reasons you describe.
Cost cutting would only be one part of the equation in profitability, with market segmentation--leading to revenue opportunities--being another. A *hypothetical* new and improved C55 (or whatever it would be called), based on the 550 engine, might fit the marketing strategy better than a C63, and result in increased profit expectations even if the tooling cost was incrementally higher.
Since the E63 will be naturally aspirated, establishing "marketing space" between it and a C63 would be much more difficult than between the current C55 and E55. Sure, you could detune the engine artificially, but then you would face potential dissapointment among the potential C Class buyers who would like their cake and the opportunity to eat it as well: "What do you mean we don't get the same horespower? Where did it go?"
If 420hp is the detuning target for a 63 engine, how far out of reach is that from the base 550 as a tune-up target? The C43's engine is rated at 302hp versus the 275hp in the CLK430. What is the CLK550 rated at, 382? 400 is but a sneeze from there. Of course you have the torque curve and other more subtle things to consider, but it's a fair bet that the HP number is the one that will be in the spotlight.
Of course, this is all still just shooting the breeze, but hey.
Regards,
e harmon
Cost cutting would only be one part of the equation in profitability, with market segmentation--leading to revenue opportunities--being another. A *hypothetical* new and improved C55 (or whatever it would be called), based on the 550 engine, might fit the marketing strategy better than a C63, and result in increased profit expectations even if the tooling cost was incrementally higher.
Since the E63 will be naturally aspirated, establishing "marketing space" between it and a C63 would be much more difficult than between the current C55 and E55. Sure, you could detune the engine artificially, but then you would face potential dissapointment among the potential C Class buyers who would like their cake and the opportunity to eat it as well: "What do you mean we don't get the same horespower? Where did it go?"
If 420hp is the detuning target for a 63 engine, how far out of reach is that from the base 550 as a tune-up target? The C43's engine is rated at 302hp versus the 275hp in the CLK430. What is the CLK550 rated at, 382? 400 is but a sneeze from there. Of course you have the torque curve and other more subtle things to consider, but it's a fair bet that the HP number is the one that will be in the spotlight.
Of course, this is all still just shooting the breeze, but hey.
Regards,
e harmon
Still, seriously though, 6.3 liters in a C Class. Am I the only person who's thinking this is a bit too much? Even the S600 doesn't have 6 liters (has turbos though). I'm starting to think this is a bit overkill.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 11
From: SF Bay Area, CA
2006 E55 and 2002 E320
Originally Posted by MoMocedes230
Your going crazy over the 63? Just give me a C55 and I will be fine.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 4
From: Portugal
'13 E500 Coupe AMG// '17 E350d // '24 E53 AMG
Originally Posted by Jakpro1
Can you imagine if it was a simple Kleemann ECU tune or exhaust issue that brought her back up to 515.....the CLK would officially be....THE DEVIL.
